User talk:JzG/Archive 156

Confused
What's the reason for removing this reference to the Dictionary of Welsh Biography? Deb (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparent self-promotion added by the author, now editing as, previous account , has also edited anonymously. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. However, DWB is a recognised source that is used in a huge number of the articles on Welsh history topics. Many of the articles were originally written in the 1950s but some have been updated. I'm surprised that someone with no academic reputation has been allowed to contribute. I'll check out Welsh wikipedia as well - see if she's been at it there. Deb (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW, Logaston Press, who published her book on Blanche Herbert, is a reputable publisher that I've come across before. I had been thinking it might be self-published, but no. Deb (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I checked that. It's a minor imprint though, and not a guarantee of quality in the same way that larger publishing houses are. Small presses often publish colourful but opinionated works, and don't have the resources to check for agenda driven writing. Not that big houses necessarily doa great job of that either. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
 * Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news
 * IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
 * There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
 * It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration
 * A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous
 * In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus and the status quo ante
Hi, I really don't get that. Would you be able to elaborate? From my point of view, what I'm seeing is two editors changing the consensus-backed policy wording just because they disagree with that consensus. Is there anything I'm missing there? – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exempting drafts tagged as promising is ridiculous, we already know that spammers abuse draft space, this just gives them a way to indefinitely protect their spam. And there is clearly no consensus for its addition, per Talk. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, so you disagree with the existing consensus. You're welcome to vote in the RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You pretend that it is a long-standing consensus version. In fact it was added on 10 May this year, and has been consistently disputed since. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was added in May, but the addition reflects the consensus reached at the RfC from September last year (it was linked in the edit summary). And yes, it has been continuously disputed, but as far as I can see only since yesterday: and it's because of this disagreement that a new RfC was started. I really don't see how we can justify disregarding the existing consensus unless and until a new one is reached at that RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Uanfala, please link to RfCs when you talk about them. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , is there any chance you might have missed the link to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66? Apologies if you've already seen it. – Uanfala (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While linking to previous RfCs is always appreciated (too many RfC authors skip this step) it isn't really a substitute for linking to the current RfC that you are talking about. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Query regarding the George Galloway case
Hi. The arbitration case request currently titled "George Galloway" has reached an absolute majority of active arbitrators to open a case, and we are currently working to get it open. During discussion among arbitrators, we considered that it may be ideal to proceed with the case on an accelerated schedule for a couple reasons. The community has already spent substantial time sifting through the contributions relevant to this case, including presenting them at the case request, so the Committee expects that evidence will not take multiple weeks to compile. Further, an accelerated schedule avoids a long drawn-out case which is usually perceived negatively by all participants. Rest assured that, if we proceed with an accelerated schedule, the Arbitration Committee will still review all the evidence, public and private, as well as the contributions to the workshop phase. If it becomes necessary, we will also extend the schedule to the usual time to allow for additional contributions and review. As you are one of the parties in the case request, could you please comment on your opinion of this possibility? ~ Rob 13 Talk 10:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Intelligent design
The IP undid your closure at. He/she wrote JzG was WP:INVOLVED so he had no right to close that discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP will be blocked, then. WP:ROPE. Fat lot I care. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Go Betty Go
You should edit more carefully. Your original edit introduced link errors into the page, so a bot fixed it by re-adding the Amazon links in the text rather than in the references section. I moved them back. Then you reverted me thus moving the links, than you want to remove, back into the text. Robman94 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should use more accurate edit summaries, then. That would have helped me to spot it. Thank you for replacing the links with vendor-neutral ones, though. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Paul Frampton
Is once again getting heat. The recent removal (and swift reinstatement by Roxy) makes more sense now. It appears his solicitors are targeting individual editors. I have left a fairly candid reponse on the talkpage but I believe its rather tasteless for him to rope in his fellow University professors to apply pressure. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw that, and responded. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A routine case of WP:TRUTH. They are going about this in a way guaranteed not to work. They need reliable independent sources that undermine the significance of the case. Removing it will not fly, because it's WP:V. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Its already gone down every possible on-wiki route. The section has been taken back to bare bones description of what happened and his explanation. Its been to AFD where I voted for delete, at the time he was borderline notable without the conviction, and its just not possible to write a biography about him without including the conviction. Any expansion of the section to give more air to his personal view/protestations of innocence runs right up against UNDUE. It certainly doesnt help he released a book about it. And now he is roping in (allegedly, I'm not taking that comment at face value) his fellow professors. Sometimes I think someone needs to sit academics down and give them a lesson in how threats are generally counterproductive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Strategic Vision (company)
Hi. I'm a summer intern working at a company called Strategic Vision. I guess a while back they hired a freelancer to make a Wikipedia page for them, but they 1) didn't really know Wikipedia--and, by extension, its rules--very well, and 2) ran into some bad luck in that the person they contracted ended up being Mar11, who was recently blocked indefinitely for meatpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing. In light of that, I have read up on a lot of policy and guidelines, and would like to draft a new Strategic Vision (company) page to submit to Articles for Consideration for review. I want to make sure all the rules are followed, including full paid disclosure, to maintain a neutral point of view and to ensure the page is not used as a means of promotion. That being the case, I just wanted to check with you before doing anything, since you originally deleted the page after it had become a draft. Let me know if you have any specific objections, instructions, advice, etc. Thanks! RevanantScholar (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Urban Splash
Please try and be constructive. Rather than summarily delete the Urban Splash article, it would be better to restore the version before the recent COI re-write. If you think an article should be deleted, you should do so via AfD or PROD. Sionk (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am being constructive. I am protecting Wikipedia from spamming and blatant link farming. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ricard Zapata-Barrero (academic)
Hi, the Barrero article had been prodded and deprodded so the next stage for deletion should be AFD if you want deletion although he has a high cite level. Moving the article to userspace because it is an autobio is not valid as autobios are allowed and salting was unjustified, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh good, meaningless and unnecessary process prolonging the life of a spam article., Well done. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes in Assam Wikipedia Page
Assam is a large state in India with more than 30 Million people residing in the state. There are multiple tourist places of importance in the state. I added the most important places. The ones which are added are not the post important ones like nobody in Assam knows about the Panbari mosque. Its not a tourist place.

You have reverted the changes saying that the gallery images are way too many. How many you think are good number of images to be displayed in the gallery?

Also, I would like to know what Wikipedia policy/guidelines say about gallery images and if there is a maximum number of images which can be added to the gallery in a certain page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saumya.purkayastha (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of people is irrelevant, you keep adding dozens of images. Guy (Help!) 05:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The number of people was just to explain you the size of the state. Its a big state and its obvious that there will be that many pages of attraction. Wikipedia is supposed to be an exhaustive source of knowledge.

What is the maximum number of images which can be added to a page and who decides that? Are you the final authority on that? If so, please dictate how many maximum images would you like on Wikipedia pages on which you do not have any knowledge about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saumya.purkayastha (talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Wiki-cookie
. I hit twenty four thousand edits tonight and became a senior editor on Wikipedia. Thank for your help over the years. -O.R.Comms 03:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you came out the other side! Guy (Help!) 06:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hey, could you also do me a favor?  Can you please comment on Talk:Mail buoy?  I wrote this late last night, kinda just for a fun, and this morning there were issues on the talk page about the article being made up with Original Research, etc.  The discussion needs third party comments I feel, as right now its just a back and forth between me and the other editor. -O.R.Comms 16:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of questionable diseases for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of questionable diseases is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of questionable diseases until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Gogo Dodo
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
 * A request for comment closed with a consensus that the promising draft template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news
 * Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
 * Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (Codemirror-icon.png) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
 * IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous
 * Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Chaos magic diagram
Hi JzG. Regarding your nomination of the File:ChaosMagicEvolution.svg, and your removal of this image from the chaos magic page, if you compare it to the image from the original text here you'll see that I've redrawn it so that it doesn't violate the copyright. Hence it is both sourced, and also my own work. Rune370 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And thus it's WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's put that to one side for a second. Could you please respond to my comments on the fringe theory page or the chaos magic talk page if you're going to revert my edits? Rune370 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * -Roxy, the dog. barcus 05:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User Digijio
Hi JzG. I'm not sure which spamlinks you spotted in the edits from. I stopped looking too closely when the pattern of copyright violations, unreliable/poor sources, and promotional content became apparent. I did notice a dealerspike.com spamlink, but it looked to me that the website (created and managed by dealerspike) was set up in such a way that a citation bot would pull the link and include it in a reference automatically, like this. I've never seen this before, and was thinking on pointing it out at RSPAM. What did you spot? Have you seen anything like the dealerspike citations? --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think he is being paid by SEOs to insert links. Multiple instances of content referenced several times to marginal or unreliable sources, which are selling something. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Chaos magic page
Hi Guy/JzG. Thank you for replying to my comments on the chaos magic talk page, I appreciate it. I'd also like to apologise for my slightly snarky comments towards you the other day, I allowed my frustration to get the better of me, and I shouldn't have.

I've added some new content to the chaos magic article, under the "concept and terminology" section near the top, in an attempt to address the "mainstream view" that needs to be given more weight. I've tried to address the mainstream view of magic historically, theologically, anthropologically, psychologically, and within occultism more generally. Then and only then have I moved on to addressing the viewpoint of chaos magic. Would you mind casting your eye over it and telling me whether you think this now gives adequate weight to the mainstream view? And, if so, whether the tag at the top of the article can now be removed. Or, if not, how precisely you think it needs to be dealt with? Rune370 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)